Complaint
Summary Report for Calendar Year 2005 (CALEA
Standard 52.1.5)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this report is
to analyze and summarize the data provided by the department’s tracking of
complaints against its members. This
report is the result of a review of the (18) complaints received this calendar
year. The data analyzed shows the type
of investigation engendered by the complaint, the resolution of the complaint, the
average resolution period, and consequences of the complaint for the member. This report includes a statistical summary of
the information regarding complaints made against department personnel in relation
to the number of calls for service. In
addition, this report includes a summary of the resolutions of the (18)
complaints received in 2005.
All complaints are referred
directly to the Chief of Police.
Complaints can be lodged in person, by mail, or by phone. In the absence of the Chief, the shift supervisor,
or acting shift supervisor can take a statement regarding a complaint and
forward the complaint to the Chief by the next working day. The Chief of police will assign an investigator
or supervisor to complete an investigation regarding the complaint and forward
a subsequent report to the Chief regarding the investigation outcome (GO 52 III
C. 1-4).
In 2005, officers responded
to over 12,600 calls for service. They affected
329 arrests and issued 796 Traffic Summons’.
These numbers equate to 13,725 contacts with citizens. This is equivalent to 1 complaint every 762
citizen contacts. This number is
miniscule compared to the undocumented daily contacts that officers have with citizens
on a daily basis to include field and telephone contacts. Thus, 18 complaints were referred by the
Chief for investigation regarding the actions of officers of the police
department.
Agency policy defines the
disposition type regarding complaints made against department employees. The dispositions are defined as follows:
Exonerated – allegations have been verified, but actions
resulted from adherence to proper and appropriate police procedures and
techniques
Sustained – allegations true and disciplinary action taken
Not
Sustained – unable to verify the
truth of the matters under investigation
Unfounded – no truth to the allegations
Of the 18 complaints made
officers were exonerated in 15 instances.
Two of the incidents were sustained and the officers received verbal
counseling for their actions. Both
incidents were minor in nature—(1) for inappropriate language, and the other
for rudeness. The other complaint was
unfounded.
No discernible, negative
patterns on the part of officers, or improper procedural issues were identified
as a result of this review. The review
makes evident that complaints received by this department are handled with
requisite gravity and concern. The
department will continue to monitor the types of complaints being made against
the agencies employees and provide guidance and training that seeks to enhance
relationships with the community we serve.
In addition to the 18
complaints received by the Police Department in 2005, there were (12)[1]
internal affairs investigations conducted by supervisory and/or command staff personnel. Thus, there were 30 incidents involving
Police Officer conduct that were investigated in 2005. This equates to about 1 in every 457 citizen
contacts necessitating an internal investigation. This number is small compared to the
undocumented daily contacts officers have with citizens on a daily basis.
Of the 12 internal affairs
investigations assigned: (6) were Sustained; (3) were Not Sustained; (1) was
Unfounded; (1) the officer was exonerated; (1) there was no disposition since
the Officer resigned.
[1] One internal investigation was also logged in as a complaint (2005-C-011) and is cross-referenced in the internal affairs files.